Talk:Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm

TOC

Assassination implies targeted killing, and execution implies killing by authority. This article sounds like he was killed in a moment of emotion, rather than a deliberate act. doesn't that make the title and lede inaccurate? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I fixed up the lead. The execution was widely regarded as being a hit job. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"CIA-backed" is edited out of the Featured Article on Main Page 2 Nov 2007

Why is mention of the CIA excised from the first sentence of the Featured Article? It is the same sentence the begins the main article, except that the phrase "CIA-backed" is edited out. Reading the Featured Article gives the impression it was a revolt to strike a blow for freedom of religious expression by the horrified ARVN leadership. I suppose it's too late to alter the Featured Article and this post to the talk page isn't likely to be seen by those who read the Featured Article without reading the main article, where "CIA-backed" very correctly appears in the first sentence. Or is it too late? Admins??? 69.17.65.50 10:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited it so CIA-backed doesn't appear in the lead either. 88.191.29.92 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a FA?

since it barely has 20 references!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I took everything from those pages of the book I quoted. If there was only one ref per para, that's because the whole para came from the two pages that I sourced and so forth. It's all inline. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Coup d'etat

There is already a link to 1963 South Vietnamese coup before the article. There is no need to make another link to it in the article itself. I've changed the link to go to Coup d'état and I'd appreciate it if people would just leave it alone. DonSlice 02:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Church of St. Francis Xavier

Catholic Church of St. Francis Xavier

I don't know where I can put it on or it is useful or not. Magnifier (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to have accurate info on their graves

Why is there no info on their graves? According to every magazine and newspaper accessible on the net, they were first buried in unmarked graves at the military headquarters by the airport, then moved to unmarked graves in Mac Dinh Chi cemetery in 1965, then in 1983 moved to their parents' cemetery in the province.GLY63 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"executed"?

The article intro states that the Diems were "executed", but this implies that they had been tried, convicted, and sentenced, while none of these occurred. Should a more accurate term be used? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Martyr ?

I was wondering whether some Catholics in Vietnam have ever considered Đình Diệm to be a kind of martyr, since he was incidentally assassinated outside a church, and that he had articulate religious views which led him to be hated by US Liberals, North Vietnamese Communists and South Vietnamese Buddhists. His assassination also coincides with the beginning of the long period of persecutions for the Vietnamese Church, which suffered greatly in the following years after the Communists gradually took over the country. ADM (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material?

Regarding [1] latest revision by user:YellowMonkey:

• The caption: "US ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.'s apparent reluctance in helping the Ngo brothers to asylum raise eyebrows" deserves tags. Also, the English is wrong. His reluctance may have raided eyebrows (past tense) but "raise eyebrows" is present tense. The correct grammar is: "raised eyebrows in the past," "still raises eyebrows today", and "will raise eyebrows in the future".

• Changing "kill" to "execution" is wrong. Execution redirects to capital punishment for a reason, as it's usually a legally authorized killing. In a coup, legal authorization is unclear, and in any case, judicial executions have trials, and afterwards the "authorities" doesn't try to cover them up as suicides. That suggests precisely that somebody doesn't want to take responsiblity and authority.

• The usual practice in non-BLP material (as here, since the Ngo brothers are dead) is to add tags where you'd like to them, not simply remove material, which is rude to the previous editor. Worse still, you should know very well that the material on the life of Duong Hieu Nghia is referenced by citation in his own BLP, since you yourself added the citations! One presumes you don't think they're adequate in the BLP? If not, remove the BLP! Furthermore, the BLP assertion that Nghia "brutally tortured" anybody is not only slanderous, but unencyclopedic, too. Do the citations say this? How do they know, since the only other people present are dead and there was no trial? So that article on Nghia achieves a two-for-one violation. But you worked on it, not I. WP:SOFIXIT, why don't you?

• I wasn't aware that you actually owned this article. Was there a place where I could go to see that you'd registered as primary author? Your pardon if I missed it. SBHarris 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese reaction

This article is written from an American POV. Rather inappropriate, all things considered. In particular, why is there nothing about domestic reaction, for instance?122.59.167.152 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what is meant by "CIA-backed coup d'état" in the opening paragraph. 7/8/2017.

This request was inserted by somebody in the main body of the article; I've removed it from there and created this entry here because this (i.e. the Talk page) is the proper place for such a request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.232.175 (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect link

The link to Republican Youth under Diệm's escape redirects to the Sinn Féin Republican Youth

Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem#Diệm's escape https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Youth&redirect=no --Frosted butts (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Potential source

The following biography of Lucien Conein is relatively recent and outlines his role in the 1963 South Vietnamese coup:

Rust, William J. (December 2019). "CIA Operations Officer Lucien Conein: A Study in Contrasts and Controversy" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence. 63 (4). Washington, D.C.: Center for the Studies of Intelligence: 43-58. Retrieved June 14, 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Perhaps someone more familiar with subject matter can tell where it might fill in the gaps. - Location (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Mirroring of the image

Someone, some years ago, mirrored this image on Commons. Is it correct? RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)